Talk:Tin Man (miniseries)

Merger proposal

I've suggested that the DG, Wyatt Cain, Azkadellia, and Glitch articles should be merged back into this article. I'm not sure why they were split off in the first place, as the "cast" section used to nicely summarize the characters and even the original Wizard of Oz characters that they are analogous to. The separate articles are 100% plot regurgitation, and the plot is already summarized in this article. Well, the Azkadellia article is maybe 75% plot summary, 25% real-world context, but that real-world info could nicely be merged into this article and would make it much better. When the main article itself is at best a start-class and consists of 60% plot summary, I see no need to split off individual character articles. These characters have not appeared anywhere outside the 3-episode miniseries, and thus all discussion of the characters can really only be made in the context of the series. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

There will be no discussion. These character articles are not to be deleted as they are perfectly well-known and noteworthy. The series Tin Man has had an impact similar to Charmed or The 10th Kingdom in that not everyone knows about it but it has a broad fanbase who would like to read information about the characters whose backstories are too complicated to fit into the article in the case of a merge. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, calm down. "There will be no discussion"??? Wikipedia is all about discussion. I haven't suggested any deletion, I've suggested merging the important encyclopedic information from the character articles into this article. This is a perfectly reasonable suggestion and there is no reason to fly off the handle about it. Saying that "they are perfectly well-known and noteworthy" etc. is pretty much your opinion, since only the Azkadellia article contains any references and therefore the other three have no sources to show that they are well-known or noteworthy. 3 of these 4 articles are 100% plot summary, which is not appropriate to an encyclopedia. There is a rather strong consensus and tradition on Wikipedia to support this (see WP:PLOT, WP:WAF, Wikipedia:Plot summaries, et al.). The characters' backstories are not too complicated to fit into this article, as this article is not very long and, as I've said, is 60% plot summary anyway. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

My $0.02: I created Azkadellia's page because she is an original character rather than a primarily derivative work, and much of the stylistic and thematic content of the series derives from the depiction of her domain. I had been adding to the "in other works" sections of the Scarecrow page for Glitch and the Tin Man page for Wyatt Cain. As those are Jupiter's pages, I will let him provide the rationale for them. FWIW, I would not personally not be against merging Glitch and Cain specifically, although I think Jupiter made a good start with DG's page, including enough critical analysis to at least distinguish the page from pure plot synopsis. I try to avoid loaded terms such as "regurgitation" in any case, especially when applied overbroadly to plot summaries that include sufficient sourced analyses, but in this case I think Azkadellia and DG's page both have justifiable standalone qualities. I put some effort (per WP:HEY) into collecting relevant material from reliable sources, to establish both notability of the character in her own right (within the genre and the series, not simply within the story). As for the merger proposal, I've always been willing to migrate whatever material on Az or DG belongs in the main article back into it. My opinion is that while plot summary can always be condensed and made less redundant (which works toward Wikipedia's stated function), it does not serve the purpose as well to dogmatically agglomerate all character pages of a single work, because this almost always deletes some useful information about critical reception, thematic context, relation to other works, etc. --Banazir (talk) 10:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Banazir. The others I don't mind being merged but the DG and Azkadellia articles definitely should not be merged though. Think of all the interesting information that would be lost. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but looking at these articles I just don't see any useful information being lost in a merge. The DG, Cain, & Glitch article are 100% plot summary and merely go into an incredibly in-depth play-by-play of a plot which is already summarized in this article (and even here it could be trimmed down). These articles have absolutely no real-world context or third-party source material to draw from. The Azkadellia article is about 80-85% the same type of plot summary. It does have some real-world, third-party stuff that is great, but that would fit quite nicely into this article. Again, the main article itself is quite short and lacking in the necessary encylopedic stuff like development, "making of", and critical reception. The "critical reception" info in the Azkadellia article is exactly this kind of stuff and would do worlds of good being moved into this article. Again, there is no reason to go splitting off individual character articles when the main article is this short and when there is little to no secondary source material to build independent character articles around. This is particularly true of these characters as they have not appeared in any other works outside the miniseries, and because the miniseries itself is so recent that any possible cultural impact the characters may have down the line cannot yet be described. Creating separate articles for each character is, at this point, really putting the cart(s) before the horse. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

IllaZilla, above you refer to a Tin Man character article being "60% plot summary" while "3 of these 4 articles are 100% plot summary", and more recently you say "80-85%" while "the DG, Cain, & Glitch article are 100% plot summary". One can only infer that the 60% and now the 80% refer to the Azkadellia article. Now, you're certainly entitled to change your opinion upon rereading the article, but if you have, I'd like to know what basis you have for this shift. I ask because, more often than not, advocates of a deletion or merger proposal dig in their heels by sharpening their stance on some criticism of the existing article(s). Quite honestly, I think anyone who looks at the revision history for Azkadellia would have to agree that the level of revision since it was nominated for deletion meets the Heymann standard (specifically, look at all the conditional "keep" comments in the AfD discussion). This is my opinion and your mileage may vary, especially if you are of the conviction that WP:PLOT interdicts any page for a character who appears in a single work. I disagree with "no one-time characters" as a unilateral doctrine, for reasons I stated in the AfD for Azkadellia: a counterexample of such a hypothetical diktat is Gaston from Beauty and the Beast, who appears only in the definitive film and not in any sequel. Others include Rick Deckard from Blade Runner (although the film is an adaptation of the novel) and some of the supporting characters in Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four - a list which includes characters not portrayed in either of the film adaptations. For the record, though: I said in the AfD thread, and I still maintain, that I would support consolidation of Tin Man character summaries into a list of characters, provided that this list include sections for central characters (especially the title character of Cain, DG, and Az). I don't see why this list belongs inside the page for the miniseries and I remain unconvinced by the mere fact of its being short (as the Az article was, and as all of the stub pages for character forks tend to be, in their beginning). A complete list of characters with their specific analyses would be long; though not quite as long as the list for Titanic, it would have the same reasons for existing. As for DG's article being a summary: it looks very similar to the Az article in the first two days of its existence, before most of the sources and improvements were added. I see no reason why such improvements cannot be made in short order, especially since protagonist characters tend to garner more articles and their actors are interviewed more. (A cursory Google search shows that this does seem to be the case for DG compared to Az.) -- Banazir (talk) 22:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I may have gotten my numbers a bit mixed up. Here's what I meant by the estimates:

• This article ("Tin Man (TV miniseries)): 60-70% plot summary
• Azkadellia: 70-80% plot summary
• DG (Tin Man), Glitch (Tin Man), and Wyatt Cain: 100% plot summary

Now obviously these are just ballpark figures and don't reflect some kind of mathematical criteria, but my point is that we really shouldn't be splitting these independent character articles off from the main article on the series "just because". These articles started out in the "Tin Man (TV miniseries)" article in the "Cast" section, with brief descriptions of each character and their role in the plot. That was a great place for the information, as it pertains to the miniseries as a whole. Over time these character descriptions start to expand and we start to think about splitting them off into independent articles. This is where I feel that some editors jumped the gun here. We should only split off topics that have enough third-party source material to establish notability and support an independent article; we shouldn't just arbitrarily create articles for each character under the hope that someday someone will come along and add secondary sources. WP:AVOIDSPLIT gives what I feel is some excellent advice: "Editors are cautioned to not immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criterion nor the specific notability criteria for their topic. Instead, editors should fully develop the main article first, locating sources of real-world coverage that apply both to the main topic and the subtopic." This is where the cart has been put before the horse, because some editors jumped straight to splitting the "cast" section off into individual character articles before there was any real-world coverage present to show notability of the characters. In doing so a significant amount of content was removed from the main article, and all we got in exchange were several articles that are just expanded play-by-play of a plot that was already summarized in the main article. This is clearly not consistent with either the spirit or the letter of WP:PLOT. Yes, it's great that some real-world context and secondary sources have been added to Azkadellia, but should not that information have been added before she was split off into her own article, rather than after? The "Portrayal and critical reception" in the Azkadellia artricle is great and is exactly what the main article on the minseries needs, so would it not be better served by merging it back into the main article, with similar real-world coverage for the other characters? I certainly think so. Once the main article is significantly developed, then we could start talking about splitting off a "list of characters" article or even some stand-alone character articles if enough secondary sources exist. But jumping from a start-class main article straight into character forks is really getting ahead of ourselves and not the best way to go about building up these articles. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree this article needs improving. I think it worth noting that I have created a list of secondary characters. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a good start, though the IMO article needs a lot more sources (most important), some rewriting to eliminate or minimize original research, and perhaps a few photographs. I'll add to it as time permits. I think the list of characters in Titanic is a good guide, and if we can bring things to this level of quality, I see nothing wrong with merging the main character articles (including even Az and DG) into a single character list. - Banazir (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest the List of Naruto characters as a better guide? It's a Featured List and thus exemplifies many of the Featured List criteria, whereas the Titanic list has been an AfD candidate and is tagged as missing sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The reason I used the Titanic list is that it illustrates some of the flaws that would plague a merger of Tin Man character articles: even sans the superfluous and redundant plot summaries that are in nearly every entry in the list, it would bloat the main Titanic article to... well, you know. IMHO, the AfDs don't really make that article a bad example; at least, the discussions themselves seem to show a tendency towards keeping (and not merging) the article for the above reasons. As for the lack of references, your point is well taken. I started referring to the list before the tag went up, and I think the unsourced historical references are a problem, along with the excess of plot references. (The real problem with that article, IMO, is its lack of organization: it should be laidout just as the main article cast list is, isolating fictional characters from portrayals of historical ones.) In any case, the Naruto list is a good one; thanks. - Banazir (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

←I have divided the cast into principal and secondary characters, though this is a rather arbitrary distinction since there is no difference that I am aware of in billing. Some "secondary" characters appear in the main cast photo. I added a link to Secondary characters in Tin Man and removed the orphan tag from the article. Personally, I think that the Glitch and Cain articles should be merged into this article rather than the Tin Man one. Here's why: for all that they have their own backstory, and for all that the writers and actors imbued them with their own unique characteristics, they are clearly analogues of the Scarecrow and Tin Woodman from the original WWOO. That's why I linked them to "other depictions" or "in other media" sections in the appropriate WWOO characters' sections to begin with. I think that if we do this with Az and DG, it will overcrowd the characters page and make it very top-heavy. OTOH, given that Titanic doesn't have its own Rose and Jack pages, I don't feel strongly about keeping separate forks for the main characters at this point and would go along with merging them into the characters page. For the record, the reason I agree with Jupiter's fork of a character page is just because I think we will need one. This page (on the miniseries itself) is indeed start class at present, but it's going to look awfully imbalanced if we just collapse Az and DG into it - unless we delete a lot of sourced, relevant, and carefully collected information in the process. A lot of reviews focus on one portrayal and most of the Sci-Fi segments focus on single characters (Az and DG) or on one thematic motif (the look of the O.Z., for example). That's actually why I forked the Az article even while the miniseries was airing: it would have stuck out from the Tin Man article (which was a lot closer to "stub-class" then) like a third arm. - Banazir (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"Editors are cautioned to not immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criterion nor the specific notability criteria for their topic." I actually considered that before forking the Az article; an editor (Collectonian) felt the article did not meet the notability criterion, and started an AfD within one hour of the article's creation while it still had the "underconstruction" tag on. Within three days, however, we had finished fleshing it out, and the consensus was to keep it. I think we're really talking about two different criteria: a) "does the spun-off article meet notability criteria?" and b) "does it maintain a good balance with the the main article (i.e., has enough effort been made to improve the main article's content before specialized subtopics are spun off and elaborated)?" IMO, speaking only for the Azkadellia article, the first criterion was definitely met, while the second was not, in retrospect. I wasn't so much jumping the gun as expecting many, many more editors to be interested in adding to the article for the whole miniseries itself! In any case, that is remedied rather easily: just as a few of us each contributed a little to some of the plot synopsis, we can add to the critical review section. For this purpose, feel free to move anything from the Az article that you think belongs here, regardless of a merger decision. (I will note, though, that some of the "critical reception" material is very Az-specific, not just by my intent but because the "Making of" shorts that Sci-Fi Pictures did for eventual inclusion on the DVD were written that way.) - Banazir (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge already! This discussion is stalled, I'll try to get things moving again. I'm for the merge, per arguments above. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 14:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

And I don't like Jupiter's tone at all there. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 14:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for merging DG, Glitch and Cain's articles here, because they really don't add anything new or critical. Annie D (talk) 15:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Soetermans, deal with it. I personally think that Glitch and Cain's articles should be merged to Secondary characters in Tin Man and change the name of that article to Characters in Tin Man. DG and Azkadellia should be kept seperate though. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Why should the DG article be exempt from this proposal? It's in the exact same state as the Glitch and Wyatt Cain articles. The Azkadellia article is the only one you can possibly make any case for keeping separate, as it's the only one that has any sources, most importantly secondary sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Because DG is the main protagonist. Giving Azkadellia an article but not DG feels rather like giving Dr Eggman an article but not Sonic the Hedgehog. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 18:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

My point exactly. Deal with it? Actually Jupe, your correct reply would be: You're right, Soetermans, I'm a one-issue Wikipedian and I should take a clear look at my words. Are you kidding me? There will be no discussion?. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 18:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Being the main protagonist means little if there aren't sufficient source materials to build an article around. That's essentially a "what about article x?" argument, when we should be judging articles on their individual merits. "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Soetermans, while your opinion on the topic at hand is appreciated, please refrain from making making personal attacks. I think if you'll check Jupiter's contributions you'll see he's hardly a 1-issue Wikipedian. Please stick to discussing the merits of the arguments and don't attack the person making them. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

First, sorry for not being clear, I was talking about this whole Tin Man thing in Jupiter's case - he doesn't seem to have a clear view on the subject, a tunnel vision if you will. Second, I didn't make any personal attacks whatsoever! I just think that Jupee's tone is inappropriate for talk pages with his "end of story attitude" there, which I think any Wikipedian is allowed to say. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 21:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was offput by your statement 3 comments up where you called him "a one-issue Wikipedian" and used an easter egg link to imply that he's a fascist. That struck me as insulting and condescending, which falls in the arena of personal attacks since you're directing your ire at the editor and not at the arguments. Anyway, while I do feel that he has tunnel vision with regard to some subjects related to these articles, he has shown willingness to compromise on others. I think, overall, we're making some headway here with regards to developing some consensus on what to do with these articles. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, now that I think about it perhaps we should merge the DG article to the List of characters article. The Azkadellia article is large and reliably sourced enough to stay on its own however. In fact Azkadellia appears to be the most well-known character from Tin Man, mostly due to Kathleen Roberton's scene-stealing performance (POV I know). With regards to the main protagonist issue I mentioned earlier, I think it's worth noting that Eleanor Iselin from The Manchurian Candidate has her own article although none of the other characters do and personally I think she deserves it. There are many villains in fiction who are more notable than the heroes they oppose. Jareth the Goblin King from Labyrinth for example and indeed Dracula. Not to mention, Cruella De Vil, the Terminator, Hannibal Lector and the Xenomorph. For these reasons, as well as the fact that it's reliably sourced and fairly well-written, I think the Azkadellia article deserves to be kept more than the DG article which should be merged to List of characters in Tin Man. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 00:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the proposal to merge Glitch and Cain into the list of secondary characters. The main issue, as I see it, is whether this should remain a list of secondary characters (as titled) or should just become the list of characters (as redirected). I vote for keeping it a secondary character list, editing the redirect link accordingly, and adding links to Azkadellia and DG articles. I second Jupiter Optimus Maximus's suggestion that we keep (and improve) those two articles. Alternatively, we could merge them into a primary characters article. I like this idea considerably less, because it's an arbitrary judgment call to say that Cain (the titular character) or Glitch (who gets as much screen time and dialogue) are secondary. Banazir (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge. A few forgettable characters who appeared in one miniseries on a cable channel. Definitely not noteworthy enough to have their own page. This is just another case of fandom getting in the way of encylopedic content on Wikipedia.George Pelltier (talk) 08:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Note: I think it should be noted for purposes of this discussion that in the time since the discussion was started several of these articles were discussed at AfD, and Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk · contribs), who expressed opinions in the above merger proposal, was indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. Most of this took place in January 2009. Relevant AfDs: Cain, DG, Glitch (and this older one on Azkadellia from 2007). I am not providing this information to sway discussion either way (I think it's pretty clear I'm still in favor of a merge), merely providing the links to keep the discussion up to date. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Merged. Now to finish the job....

Merger proposal 2

List of Tin Man characters is mostly fancruft. I mean really: Neal McDonough who plays as Wyatt Cain "said that he enjoyed working with" Trujillo "and felt tremendous compassion for him. Is this an encyclopedia or People magazine? By trimming the fluff and editorial commentary, this could easily fit under "Cast and characters". - Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I 100% agree with you. Please feel free to merge it. Excellent job merging the other character articles! --IllaZilla (talk) 17:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Did I miss a discussion for this new merger proposal? The first notice I got of anything was that all of the images used on the Azkadellia article had been orphaned. I thought that at least there would have been a second AfD before unilateral action was taken. Moreover, doesn't a merger usually entail retention of the significant content from the article that is subsumed? I'm not seeing very much of any of the character articles in this one; rather, it's just noted that the Tin Man article is too long. Banazir (talk) 03:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The only "significant content" worth merging was the real-world info on the actors' portrayals and critical opinion, as that was, in fact, retained. The rest was merely character-specific plot summary (and the plot is already summarized in this article) and excessive non-free images. If you'll look at the diffs of JasonAQuest's edits, you'll see that he did in fact merge all of the sourced, real-world information from the individual character articles into this article. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but as I posted on his talk page (and above), there exists a list of Tin Man characters, which is where I would advocate merging the Azkadellia material except the source material pertinent specifically to critical reception of the miniseries. Or are you still planning on folding that into this article, too? As for the content, I'm not sure why you've put that specific phrase in quotes; should I read that as just a quotation, or do you mean it ironically? For the record, I understand where JasonAQuest is coming from with the characterization of in-story POV material as fancruft, but to me that just means it belongs in a TWWOO or "SF reimaginings" wiki. Ergo, I intend (as time permits) to first work on a more careful subsumption and condensation of the material from Azkadellia that actually belongs, then on transwiking the in-story material wherever it best belongs. -- Banazir (talk) 08:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I meant it as a quote, but I guess there was a grain of sarcasm to it. In my opinion the list of characters should be merged as well, as it's nothing but more plot summary. I mean really, this is a 3-episode SyFy miniseries...does anyone really think that there's enough secondary source coverage out there to justify more than a single article about it? Is there any verifiable, real-world information about the characters that wouldn't fit just fine into the main article? Best to keep it at just one article, and work on improving it to at least GA. Only if it were to grow to excessive size would it be pertinent to consider separate character articles (per WP:SS), but I honestly don't see that ever happening. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

(Actually the plot summary is no longer excessive, so I've removed that tag.) I didn't merge the character articles into List of characters in Tin Man for the simple reason that it seemed an unnecessary intermediate step; I think that article should be merged as well, which is why I've proposed doing so. This is, effectively, a long feature film; a single article can cover it adequately for the purposes of an encyclopedia, just as it does for almost every feature film that plays at the cineplex by the mall. The idea of developing a separate Oz encyclopedia that isn't constrained by Wikipedia's notability and third-party-sources requirements is an excellent one. (In fact, I've done just that for a certain contemporary work from Britain. I can hook you up with my tech guy if you're interested.) - Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree the plot summary isn't that bad any more, but if we're going to merge the character article in as well, it's going to need work; if the consensus is to retain it, Azkadellia's character description (independent of plot) should be merged there, and was probably the most fleshed out of the four main characters (Az, DG, Glitch, Cain). There is an Oz wiki with its own Tin Man article; I just hadn't researched it before. The main question is whether Azkadellia should be forked from the Wicked Witch of the West article that the name currently redirects to, as the wiki currently puts derivative characters (even reimaginings) under their original TWOO analogues. I'll have to talk to the Oz Wiki folks and see what the feeling is. Thanks for the offer, though; I've had my developers set up a few Mediawikis for me a few years back (c. 2005-2006), but I should really learn to do it myself. -- Banazir (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about this character description? Because to me it just reads like "plot summary part 2" and of course is fully unreferenced. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb, for any character which has appeared only in one story, character description = plot summary. Who she is = what she does in the story. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find any substantial sources for the list of characters article. I'd recommend summarizing and merging it. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Machines stolen

The article rightly states "Wyatt Cain (Neal McDonough), a former "Tin Man" law enforcer who was locked in an iron suit for years as punishment for opposing Azkadellia". The story tells us that Glitch designed the machine that was torturing Cain while he was in the suit, turned on by Azkadellia's henchman, Zero. It is not vandalism to put this in the article as another one of the machines she stole from Glitch, unless one is synthesising Glitch created it for the purpose of torturing Cain. 76.20.213.207 (talk) 22:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe the vandalism edit summary was in error, as this is a content dispute rather than vandalism. That said, I don't recall anything in the story where it's stated that any other of Glitch's designs were stolen except for the Sun Seeder. Sure, there are other things he invented that Azkadellia's forces are now using to their own ends, but they didn't steal these designs, at least not in the same way that they stole the Sun Seeder (by physically removing part of his brain). For example, Glitch invented the hologram device, but the fact that Zero was using it to torture Cain doesn't mean that he stole the design. Glitch certainly didn't intend for it to be used this way, but using it for nefarious ends isn't the same thing as stealing it. If I recall correctly, Glitch invented many things during his time as the queen's adviser, but the only one explicitly stated to have been stolen from his mind is the Sun Seeder. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. You made some good points. 76.20.213.207 (talk) 09:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tin Man (miniseries). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090511190836/http://www.scifi.com:80/scifiwire/index.php?id=45792 to http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?id=45792

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tin Man (miniseries). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081024075959/http://www.scifi.com:80/scifiwire/index.php?category=2&id=45730 to http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=2&id=45730

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tin Man (miniseries). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=2&id=42220
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080920201517/http://cdn.emmys.tv/downloads/2008/CTA08winners_pressrel.pdf to http://cdn.emmys.tv/downloads/2008/CTA08winners_pressrel.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)